Tuesday, September 05, 2006

And I was all like, "Yeah right!", and he goes, "Whatever!"

by monolog

Mama recently got me the Fourth Edition American Heritage Dictionary to be my ever-present companion this school year. She and Papa each had one in college and found them to be invaluable (which is evident by the current condition of Mama's First Edition red cover.) I have already found mine very helpful. There are many, many times I've wanted to look up the definition of a word or find out its etymology, and now it brings such satisfaction to discover that I've actually remembered to bring my new 21st century-looking 8x5 American Heritage with me all the way out here under the tree to help with a literature assignment.

On the back...

"This new American Heritage is more suited to our national character than any other previous dictionary." -The New York Times Book Review

...Newly updated to reflect our changing language, this revised edition...

like (2)
-idiom: be like Informal
To say And he's like, "Leave me alone!"
(See Usage Note at go)

all
-idiom: be all Informal
To say He's all, "What did you do that for?"
(See Usage Note at go)

go
Usage: Many speakers now use go in informal conversation to report speech, as in Then he goes, "You think you're real smart don't you?" This usage is much like that of the quotation introducers be all and be like, although these constructions can also be used to express statements that sum up an attitude, as in He's all, "No way!" By contrast, go is largely restricted to realating dialouge in the present tense narration.

I've often like wondered about how they were going about explain this like...mutation of our language when they finally like admitted these usages into the dictionary. Well, they actually went to the trouble. I was betting they'd put, 'Usage: Go ask the nearest 13 year old.'

8 comments:

van Danne said...

this would seem to argue the side that proposes the purpose of a dictionary to be explanation of current usage. or is it that the dictionary idea itself is devolving?

Lynn Bruce said...

exactly -- we used to think dictionaries were supposed to set a standard for usage. but how can a dictionary presume to set a standard for a culture that rejects prescribed standards?

this just steels my resolve to take care of our older dictionaries. and while we're at it, if you can find a thesaurus from about the 1950s or so, nab it. they're brain benders compared to some of the newer ones.

rachel tsunami said...

monolog can speak to this, and we haven't discussed it, but i rather think he isn't proposing to "argue a side" in this post. read it again. perhaps he's just exposing an inevitability.

Lynn Bruce said...

logan didn't clearly take a side, no, but the post does raise an interesting old debate about what a dictionary is supposed to do. the way i read dan's comment was that he was referring not so much to logan's post as being an argument, but rather that the inclusion of those definitions reveals that American Heritage takes that side of the argument.

i feel a groan coming on when i think about all those monosyllabic adolescents out there tartly retorting to their teachers and parents that "it's, like, in the dictionary. so whatever."

rachel tsunami said...

ah yes, i see. and I agree of course, as we are indisputably on the conservative side of that argument.

monolog said...

'Tis a question I've pondered more than once, Van Danne. No, this post wasn't particularly meant to address that argument, but I'm sure I don't know why not, as I thunk that thought while posting this post.
I'm inclined to agree with Shenaynay and Tsumani about it, seeing the obvious fact that the dictionary is to inform one on the proper definition and usage of a term. But the question may be asked, "What good would a French dictionary do us if it was printed in 1950, and didn't contain the most contemporary French terms and usages? We wouldn't know how to communicate to the best advantage."

fa-so-la-la said...

Samuel Johnson adopted an intriguing tactic when he wrote his dictionary-- he informs the reader of the etymology and proper meaning of a word, then provides any common usages, noting in a hilariously curmudgeonly fashion that this usage is 'bad', 'common', 'low', 'base', 'inexcusable', or any combination of the above. See upcoming Beehive post for examples.

Owl of the Desert said...

It's all just, like, scary dude.